We may now consider the relative importance of the three chief marks of a tradition, viz., (a) its chronic character, (b) its continuity, and (c) its authoritativeness. Clearly (c) is the most important feature. There is a tradition only when the belief or practice is handed on unquestioned. When there is criticism and counter-criticism, what survives or emerges is no longer purely traditional but has in it an element of triumphant argument or rational decision. When criticism is brought to bear, either it is ignored or suppressed, or else some sort of answer is made to it and reasons are given for preferring the tradition to any proposed alteration. Rote and imitation are characteristic of tradition, and reason runs counter to them both. When reason is employed, beliefs are not merely handed on, but argued for, and practices not merely taught, but justified. Beliefs and practices that are supported by cogent argument are often called rational, and there is a certain opposition between tradition and reason, just as there is between authority and criticism. There may be good reasons for a tradition, but if those who uphold it have recourse to reason, they have detracted from the authority of the tradition by so defending it, for to lend support is to admit the possibility of collapse.
(H. B. Acton, "Tradition and Some Other Forms of Order," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s., 53 [1952-53]: 1-28, at 5)
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 